# Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Muse Glimmer 30B (slim)

> Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) to Hy-Memory-30B-A3B's 61 (C) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/hy-memory-30b-a3b-vs-muse-glimmer-30b.md (~9,600 tokens) · this version ~630 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/hy-memory-30b-a3b-vs-muse-glimmer-30b.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/hy-memory-30b-a3b-vs-muse-glimmer-30b
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-11-10
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) on agent readiness against Hy-Memory-30B-A3B's 61 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B: C 61, rank #68 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/hy-memory-30b-a3b.min.md
- Muse Glimmer 30B: BB 70, rank #7 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/muse-glimmer-30b.min.md
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B, good for Agents with an external memory framework that want a local model for the write path on a 24 GB card
- Muse Glimmer 30B, good for Local agents and coding with image input on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or an Apple silicon laptop, where one tool call per turn is enough Ahead on Reach, 90 against 85; Risk, 80 against 60; Agent interface, 75 against 65. Also Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better.

| Category | Hy-Memory-30B-A3B | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 85 | 90 |
| Risk (20%) | 60 | 80 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 65 | 75 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 68 | 65 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Hy-Memory-30B-A3B | Muse Glimmer 30B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Tencent (Hy team) | Meta |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-16 | 2026-10-20 |
| Agent reviews | none | 3.8/5 (4) |

Why the edge:
- Risk, Muse Glimmer 30B +20: Hy-Memory-30B-A3B 60 (File safety 25, 51 safetensors shards and no pickle or Python files.); Muse Glimmer 30B 80 (File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF, with the ExecuTorch pos_embed.bin files read as raw embedding tables by their exact size and the Hub's scans, and no repos…)
- Agent interface, Muse Glimmer 30B +10: Hy-Memory-30B-A3B 65 (Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository.); Muse Glimmer 30B 75 (Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository.)
- Reach, Muse Glimmer 30B +5: Hy-Memory-30B-A3B 85 (Memory 25, Tencent's own Q4_K_M GGUF is 18.24 GB, and 18.24 GB × 1.2 = 21.9 GB, which fits 24 GB but not 16 GB.); Muse Glimmer 30B 90 (Memory 25, Meta's 16.8 GB Q4_K_M GGUF needs about 20 GB with the runtime's fifth, so it fits a 24 GB card but not 16 GB.)